{% include "includes/auth/janrain/signIn_traditional.html" with message='It looks like you are already verified. If you still have trouble signing in, you probably need a new confirmation link email.' %}

Standard framer not happy with evolution sections

A member of the committee that framed the new state science standards isn’t pleased with how evolution is addressed, but he says it has nothing to do with the exclusion of faith-based alternative ideas such as creationism.

Fred Cutting, a retired engineer from Clearwater, sent The Palm Beach Post a copy of the minority report he plans to submit to the state Board of Education before members vote on the new standards Feb. 19.

According to Cutting, the sections of the new standards that deal with evolution are “very dogmatic” and are not treated like science. He especially takes issue with the lack of distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

He writes in his email:

“The students need to learn the vast majority of evolutionary evidence supports micro-evolutionary theory, (improvements in corn, beef cattle, dogs, etc.) There is very little evidence to support macro-evolution or the origin of the corn, cattle, dogs, etc. In short, teach all the evidence that supports and challenges both spheres of evolution. The fact is that there are many legitimate scientific critiques of macro-evolution, and students deserve to hear about their concerns and data. This will make them better scientists, and better citizens.”

Cutting further writes:

“I am ONLY advocating that we teach both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution, and I am NOT advocating recommending that we teach any alternative to evolution, like intelligent design.”

The debate over whether to formally add evolution to state science standards and thereby require students to learn about it has created quite the stir in northern Florida and the Panhandle.